A Gen Z who was always on her phone and “talking about herself” has had a big win. Photo / 123rf
A Gen Z who was always on her phone and “talking about herself” has had a big win. Photo / 123rf
A Gen Z hairdresser who spent her shift “gossiping”, using her phone and “talking about herself” to clients has won an undisclosed payout after a tribunal decided that she had been fired unfairly last year.
Jorja McGennan, a young apprentice who had “limited work experience” when she was hired in April 2021, was not offered “procedural” fairness when she was asked to leave Summer Jade Hair Salon in Hervey Bay, Queensland, the Fair Work Commission (FWC) revealed on Wednesday.
In the past, salon owner Angela Park had given McGennan multiple verbal warnings about “the quality of her work, her work performance, client complaints, mobile phone usage and interaction with clients”, the tribunal shared.
Things took a turn for the worst in July after the apprentice reportedly caused the salon to lose one of its highest-paying long-term clients “because you think you are right with no ramifications”, Park wrote in an official warning shortly prior to firing her.
McGennan had also received “five verbal warnings” about being on her cellphone during work hours.
“Quality of work not up to standard and not taking ownership of mistakes, always blaming others,” the letter added.
“Clients not wanting to return to the salon because of your attitude and quality of work and care. Taking sick days without doctor certificates. Talking about yourself to clients, when the clients are there to relax and enjoy their experience in the salon [two verbal warnings prior].”
McGennan told the commission that in May 2023, while she was absent from work on a sick day, Park had “spoken negatively about her” to one of the salon’s long-term customers.
The owner of the salon told the commission that “she did express disappointment” with McGennan’s conduct “because her actions put pressure on the team and made clients feel uncomfortable, but it was not negative”.
The client mentioned the conversation to McGennan at an appointment the following month, and the Gen Z hairdresser confronted her boss about the comments that were made.
Park said she thought there had been a “misunderstanding” and asked McGennan to “explain this to the client and offer an apology for this issue to be resolved”, the tribunal shared.
However, the tension within the salon caused the customer to leave, saying she “felt uncomfortable returning to the salon while [McGennan] was at the salon after the miscommunication”.
Jorja McGennan was unfairly sacked last year, the FWC ruled. Photo / Facebook
After giving the young worker a warning letter, Park warned her that she would be given one week to improve her performance. However, after some back-and-forth, the owner sent McGennan an irritated text telling her she was being let go.
“Clearly this is going nowhere,” she wrote.
“I believe the best thing is for me to give you two weeks’ notice. I’ve come to this conclusion because the problems aren’t being rectified. It’s going round and round with no outcome. Your final date will be Saturday July 15. Sorry it has come to this.”
McGennan and Park fought over whether the Gen Z worker had quit or was being sacked.
The apprentice later insisted “I have not resigned or quit, therefore I can stay for the rest of my apprenticeship or you can terminate me”.
Summer Jade Hair Salon lost a ‘long-term client’, the tribunal heard. Photo / Instagram
“I have no intention to cease my employment this close to my apprenticeship completion date,” she texted.
Park wrote, “OK Jorja, I have given you two weeks notice to terminate your employment.”
McGennan filed her unfair dismissal application the same day.
The matter was brought to court in October by FWC deputy president Nicholas Lake, who ruled in favour of McGennan on Wednesday.
During the proceedings, Park brought to light a TikTok clip posted by McGennan on July 18 “which referenced quitting a toxic job, as evidence [she] resigned”.
“Although [Ms McGennan] acknowledged this was an unwise decision, it did not change the fact that the employment relationship was ended by [Ms Park] via text on July 4, 2023,” Lake said.
He went on to say that even though McGennan had told Park she hoped to leave at the end of her apprenticeship in October, this was a “heat of the moment” comment and she had actually been sacked.
The commissioner claimed that while the salon owner had the right to be “frustrated” about losing a long-term customer, “the incident could have been better managed”.
“The nature of the industry requires communication skills with clients who may raise an array of topics,” he said.
“A topic raised in this instance was a discussion about a workplace situation. It is likely that Ms Park’s comment to the long-term client on June 13, 2023 may have been a passing comment which was misinterpreted by the client. The comments became a misunderstanding through gossip shared between the [Ms McGennan] and the long-term client. [Ms McGennan] may not have had the context when hearing about the comments from the long-term client which led to tension between [Ms McGennan] and [Ms Park].”
The tribunal accepted that there was a “valid reason” for the hairdresser’s dismissal when examining her overall conduct but said the ultimate reason given – “happy to lose one of Summer Jade Hair Salon’s top 10 highest paying clients for 10 years, because you think you are right with no ramifications” — seemed to be “somewhat spiteful and capricious”.
Lake said that McGennan had not been given proper notice and a chance to reply after the formal warning letter prior to being asked to leave.
“I note that [Ms McGennan] could have dealt with the situation more professionally,” he shared.
“[She] appears to be new to the workforce and there are going to be situations where it may be disagreeable to her. [Ms McGennan] could have at least discussed the misunderstanding and ask the long-term client to come back to the hair salon.”
However, the commission decided that “the number of procedural deficiencies cannot be overlooked and support the finding that [McGennan’s] dismissal was harsh, unjust or unreasonable”.
“What should have been done was to conduct a review of [Ms McGennan’s] performance on July 11, 2023, and give [her] a cooling-off period in addressing the long-term client, instead of deciding to dismiss her on the day she received the written notice,” Lake said.
“As a result, I am satisfied that [McGennan] was unfairly dismissed under s.394 of the Act and is entitled to a remedy under this provision.”
A hearing will be held at a later time to reach an “appropriate remedy”.
Park declined to comment and McGennan has been contacted for comment.
